In order to provide tax cuts, the government should lower superannuation payments?

On average, everyone strongly disagrees with consensus between 182 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

The pension should not be played with, ever. Respect the elderly because they are you in years to come

Pensioners cannot change the facts of the last 40 years. To move forward we need to plan for the next 40 not the last. Untill we think 40-60 years out and have money where Govt's cant touch it (why cullens plan is doomed to failure) we will always see our elderly suffer.

we have a huge budget surplus - we can afford both

The gummint completely f'd up my pension plans. What has been promised MUST be paid - pensioners have no way out.

Current superannuitants were promised a living wage (or pension) when they retired. Many of them paid for it we should not be cutting into their income especially as they are no longer in a position to replace that income by working.

Don't lower the payments. Increase the age of entitlement and claw-back some of it from those retirees on high incomes - say over $30,000.

Reasons To Agree

ONly once the private sector is able to provide options for taxpayers once taxes are 10% or less.

Yes, superannuation should eventually be cut altogether. But only after the government sells of it's assets and give said money back to the elderly for the decades of tax that they have had taken from them. With inflation taken into account. The care of the elderly should be sorted by their families first. Private Health insurance second and by true charity third. All after being back paid for their long life of taxation.